1. The instant Revision Petition has been preferred by the
petitioner to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated
16.10.2014 of learned Special Judge CBI / Addl. Sessions Judge, in CR
No.25/2014 by which order dated 25.06.2014 of learned Metropolitan
Magistrate to frame charge under Sections 468/471 IPC against the
respondent was set-aside. Revision petition is contested by the respondent.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file. The facts are not in dispute. Both the petitioner and the
Crl.Rev.P.736/2014 Page 1 of 9
respondent who are real brothers are involved in dispute over a property
bearing No.719, measuring 300 sq.yards (in short ‘suit property’) situated
in the Revenue Estate of Mundaka, Delhi. The respondent – Mohinder
Kumar Verma had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction bearing Suit
No.29/1997 in 1997 acting as ‘attorney’ of his mother Smt.Kalawati
claiming that she was owner-in-possession of the ‘suit property’. The
respondent had filed a photocopy of the general power of attorney dated
03.01.1997 purportedly executed by his mother Smt.Kalawati by which he
was authorized to file the said suit. He also placed on record photocopies
of few documents which included Sale Agreement, Will and Receipts, etc.
dated 25.10.1982 in support of ownership of his mother Smt.Kalawati.
The petitioner – Harish Chander Verma put appearance in the said suit
and relying on certain documents claimed to have purchased the suit
property on 17.11.1982. The learned Civil Jude thereupon directed the
respondent to produce Smt.Kalawati in person in the Court to ascertain
whether she had authorised him to file the said suit. The respondent,
however, did not produce her in the Court and opted to withdraw the suit
by filing an application. It is informed that the Trial Court did not permit
him to withdraw the suit. The respondent stopped appearing and finally
the suit was dismissed with costs `2,000/- on 10.03.1999.
Crl.Rev.P.736/2014 Page 2 of 9
Source: Indian Kanoon